Diggers Forum. Anonymous Complaints.

[Crocodile]

Why can't the cIFA decide whether a complaint "has legs"? are they incapable of doing this?

It seems to me that the Diggers Forum route is a very unofficial route. Why are they prepared to put their name forward when most archaeologists won't? Why do they know if something has legs, more than me or anyone else? What legal guarantees have I for an anonymous complaint put forward through the diggers forum? How do I know that they are not just going to grass me up to their mates who run the company I work for? And again why is the cIFA not capable of doing all that the Diggers Forum claim they will do as part of their official complaints procedure?

[Crocodile]

"A "good" complaint has first tried to sort it without recourse to CIFA ".

Most employees do not feel comfortable or able to pursue complaints with their employers through fear of negative recompense.

It's not helpful to descibe a complaint as "good" or bad depending on whether the compainant feels confident to first pursue the complaint with the organisation or individual. It's a "good" example of how complaints procedures are worded to put people off complaining.

[GnomeKing]

AM I THE TROLL ???

i notice that DiggersForum FaceBooK has no comments now (or is that just me...)

I left a message - and when i looked back a couple of days later, all comments had been removed + there was a narky message about not tolerating Trolls...
"Hello DF, please be aware that whilst we advocate free and frank discussion about our profession, we will not tolerate having our page trolled. All trolls will be banned and reported to Facebook by the committee without hesitation"

Now, Everybody knows that Gnomes hate Trolls so probably not me.

i think i said something like
"@KateGeary - please don't worry about basic skills and standards > i can train anybody with a real interest how to work in the team. Instead focus on the other end of archaeological pyramid, because that is where the incompetence and ignorance that make my job hard most often originate"

oh yes, in relation to "Fighting Back", i said something like;
"Great Work! - just a few problems from bitter personal experience. What to do when the county archaeologist and council refuse to look at or deal professionally with archaeological evidence, and when the IFA simply shut their eyes tight against this problem?"

I think it is a shame that the diggers forum 'frank' discussion does not extend to any actual comments being left now.
I also wonder who (and why) would anybody 'Troll' it, unless they actually had some archaeological matter they actually cared about and wanted discussed.

WELCOME TO SOCIALIZED-MEDIA :face-crying:

[BAJR]

I do sympathise with careful moderation of frank discussion. And I can’t comment on what was said. However, if there is removal, then there should be a right of comment to explain why.. ( as people know here) You can’t have frank discussion unless they have rules to apply.
And so one must look at how best things can change… am writing questions just now

[Marc Berger]

Facebook

The Diggers’ Forum is now on Facebook. By ‘Liking’ the page you will be able to receive regular news updates on DF activities and current and ongoing campaigns. The page will support the existing newsletter, which will still feature in-depth coverage of relevant news and articles. The page is also there for you to give feedback to the DF committee and other members, as well as for everyone to contribute to discussions on DF news and other events. So if you’re on Facebook go to http://www.facebook.com/DiggersForum and click on ‘Like’!’

its not discussion they want is it "like".

[kettlaness]

Why are the DF being the name? why can't the cIFA be the name? what difference does it make? either way no name of the complainant is put forward. I would expect an organisation that wishes to uphold standards in archaeology to be able to pursue a complaint in its own name.

There is much that can be investigated without a complainants name being involved.

I agree entirely with the above comments.

Last year, I submitted a complaint to the cIFA on the basis that a member had presented a HS which displayed a higher level of accreditation than he actually has - something that could easily be proven beyond doubt {the cIFA had only to check membership details - they did this and found what I said was true}. I was told however, that the complaint had to be submitted by me and not by the cIFA.

The HS was produced for a planning application; since I didn't make a complaint to the cIFA, I was able to inform people that false accreditation had been listed on the HS. I did not pursue the complaint, because had I done so, it would have meant that I could not disclose any details to anyone. I told the Planners, EH & the County Archaeologist about the matter; I asked how they could have confidence in the contents of the HS, when the author had cited false accreditation. EH and the County archaeologist simply didn't want to know - they were entirely unconcerned & told me that the HS was 'fit for purpose'. I fail to see how they could have such faith in the 'integrity' of the document. Regarding the accreditation, the universal stance was that 'it was a matter for the cIFA' . . . but the cIFA will only investigate if someone else makes a complaint.

In a nutshell, an archaeologist presented a HS on a public forum; it says that he's accredited to the cIFA to a specific level. Except that, he isn't. Important to note, the higher the level of accreditation, the greater the membership fee - there are potential savings to be made here, since the cIFA will only act when someone else makes a complaint.

[Sith]

My understanding is that as the 'upholder of standards' [expects deluge of nonsense] the CIfA investigates transgressions by its members (individual and corporate), based on complaints submitted by a third party. Surely if the CIfA were to be the complainant we'd end up in a situation where they would need to approach a third party to do the 'investigating' to demonstrate that there was no bias in operation?

Or maybe I just need another cup of tea?

[Sith]

Last year, I submitted a complaint to the cIFA on the basis that a member had presented a HS which displayed a higher level of accreditation than he actually has - something that could easily be proven beyond doubt {the cIFA had only to check membership details - they did this and found what I said was true}. I was told however, that the complaint had to be submitted by me and not by the cIFA.

Was a statement of an incorrect level of accreditation the only thing wrong with the report?

[kettlaness]

My understanding is that as the 'upholder of standards' [expects deluge of nonsense] the CIfA investigates transgressions by its members (individual and corporate), based on complaints submitted by a third party.

This ^^^ is a partial truth. The CIfA will first consider if a complaint is worthy of further investigation. IF it is deemed worthy of a follow-up investigation, a panel (of CIfA members) will then deliberate the matter. Each member of the panel should be unbiased & have no connection with the individual or organisation facing the complaint - no CIfA Institute/staff members are involved in making the investigation.

Surely if the CIfA were to be the complainant we'd end up in a situation where they would need to approach a third party to do the 'investigating' to demonstrate that there was no bias in operation?

As mentioned, this is what happens already - the 'third party' that carry out the investigation being members, not the CIfA governing body/committee.

The CIfA makes a declaration, after the findings have been made; following this, they'll act as they feel appropriate.

Or maybe I just need another cup of tea?

Only if you've nothing stronger.

[kettlaness]

Was a statement of an incorrect level of accreditation the only thing wrong with the report ?

Not in my opinion . . . so I sought the views of a leading expert 'Mr X' - he agreed with me and put the reasons why in writing.

The county archaeologist said that whilst he respected 'Mr X', he did not agree with him.

I found out afterwards, that the County Archaeologist, the Agent who submitted the application & the archaeologist who wrote the HS all used to work together . . . just a coincidence, I'm sure.